Patent Reform?
Maybe the patent system needs reform. I’m not sure it doesn’t. But...
I have some big problems with Mark Cuban’s suggestion that all software patents (and process patents) be invalidated.
If you create a new process, use it. The benefit is from creating the idea and using it in a business to your advantage. Afraid that some big company might steal the idea? That is life.
Yes, if we invalidate those patents, then that’s life. But if we don’t invalidate them? Then that’s life. You can justify anything by saying, “Don’t like it? That’s life.”
This is the same issue I have with most free-market capitalists: They have a habit of saying, “that’s life,” or, “they’re getting exactly what they deserve,” or, “that’s where that person is supposed to be” — and they really don’t seem to notice just how dogmatic those statements are. If you’re so in love with capitalism that you start thinking its results are just correct, then great — but you’re no longer arguing that capitalism gives better results; you’re just defining its results as better.
Similarly, if you’re so in love with the idea of invalidating whole categories of patent, then the results can seem to be just correct, and saying, “that’s life” to anyone who disagrees can seem appropriate and sensible.
Some of the benefits of eliminating process and software?
a. Reduce the court room costs associated with process and software patent litigation. That is taxpayer money saved.
OK, that sounds good. But...
c. End the ridiculousness of the current Patent Arms Race.
Companies are buying patent collections as a way to defer litigation ...
Whoa, what?! Software/process patents are bad because litigation is so costly — so why is it bad for companies to reduce litigation via opposing portfolios? Huh? I’ve got my patents, you’ve got yours. Neither of us really wants to spend a zillion dollars on litigation. So we shake hands and agree not to. What’s wrong with that? Oh, yeah, it’s just “ridiculous.” And if I don’t think it’s ridiculous too, then I’m wrong because “that’s life,” right?
Billions of dollars are being spent on this arms race. Billions of dollars that without question impact consumer prices from these companies.
Um, no. Let’s say companies X and Y are both in the personal technology business. And let’s say they make a deal, and a billion dollars moves from X to Y, while a set of patents moves from Y to X. How, exactly does this impact consumer prices? I’m not seeing it. Maybe consumer prices will go up, maybe they’ll go down, maybe they won’t change much at all. Am I supposed to assume that “without question” they will go up? Why?
Eliminating software and process patents won’t end patent litigation, but it certainly will be a good first step.
Wow. I’ll leave it to the reader to figure out what that means.
© 2012 Darel Rex Finley | design by 